Sri Lanka votes against compromise

As published in The Samosa

Sri Lanka’s opposition talked of giving concessions to the country’s defeated Tamil minority. The Sinhalese majority said no. Melanie Gouby analyses Sri Lanka’s presidential election.
For all the talk of a close election, in the end President Mahinda Rajapaksa was re-elected comfortably when results were announced on Wednesday. General Sarath Fonseka, the former head of the Sri Lankan army and Rajapaksa’s main opponent, lost with 40.15 per cent of the vote amid questions over the fairness of the elections.
Indeed, Dayananda Dissanaoke, the Elections Commissioner, announced that he would resign following the election as he felt his directives had not been respected by the state media and the government.
“He is not satisfied with the state media and the authorities, who did not follow his instructions regarding how the state media should handle the coverage of the campaign. It is a disappointment,” said a consultant at the Department of Elections.

Although the opposition has claimed votes were rigged, so far no proof has been put forward. “I think the elections itself were transparent. It is the way the campaign was reported by the state media that is an issue,” said the consultant.

Rajapaksa had called the election early in order to bank on his victory against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), the guerrilla movement that divided the island for over thirty years, but his plan seemed to be seriously jeopardised when victorious former army chief General Fonseka decided to run against him.

With the Sinhalese population apparently equally split between the two contenders, it seemed the Tamil minority would decide the victor. But a close look at elections results shows that Fonseka’s gamble to woo Tamil voters actually turned against him.
Indeed, while he won by a large margin in Tamil-heavy districts such as Vanni and Jaffna, and had a strong argument as the “national hero” and military mind behind the victory over the LTTE, Fonseka could not convince the Sinhalese majority that he would deliver as president.
“To me it seems obvious that he would not win. He said he would make concession to Tamils – although very small, that’s enough to put off many people here,” said Sudesh Jayarante, a 25-year-old Sinhalese engineer living near Colombo.
Fonseka’s hotel in Colombo, the luxurious Cinnamon Lakeside Hotel, was also surrounded by nearly a hundred soldiers on Wednesday for reasons that remain obscure.
Fonseka, as former leader of the national army, retains loyalty within the troops he led to victory last April, and it seems Colombo authorities may have feared he would rally soldiers and attempt to seize power on grounds of electoral fraud.

Numerous accusations that the other side might attempt a coup were made during the campaign, and international observers feared that clashes between partisans of the two candidates would occur following the election results. But the streets of Colombo remained relatively calmed yesterday.
The campaign was also marked by mutual accusations of responsibility for war crimes during the final decisive attack against the Tamil Tigers. Fonseka had taken a strong stance, claiming he would allow the military campaign to be scrutinised by an international commission.

But Rajapaksa never made concessions on either war crimes or the Tamils’ yearning for self-determination.
In spite of the effect created by Fonseka’s surprise candidacy, Rajapaksa’s campaign remained in line with his policy against the Tamil rebellion, and his refusal to make concessions secured him Sinhalese votes, and victory.
Rajapaksa also appealed to a section of the Tamil population. The Guardian quoted a Tamil truck driver from Jaffna on Sunday, saying: “When the war was going on, we suffered enormously at the hands of both pro-LTTE and pro-government groups. But all that ended with the elimination of the LTTE. Although many young people want a change we who have seen much in life strongly believe that credit goes to the president.”
Rajapaksa has thus been re-elected for a six-year term, and today Maithripala Sirisena, a minister in his government, announced the president would shortly dissolve parliament to ensure he holds a strong majority.
With an unchallenged second mandate, a country free from terrorism and a strong majority in Parliament, Rajapaksa will have free rein.
Given that his first term as president was characterised by corruption, nepotism and attacks on journalists that led Reporters Without Borders and Transparency International to include Sri Lanka in their respective lists of “troubled” countries, this is not something the Sri Lankan opposition and media will look forward to.

Rajapaksa re-election

It is not surprising news, but a very disappointing one. Rajapaksa has been re-elected as the president of Sri Lanka. His main opponent, General Sarath Fonseka, was relying on the minorities’ votes to win the elections, but reaching out to the Tamils may be the reason why he lost. The majority of the Sinhalese population is not ready to make the necessary compromises and his willingness to include Tamils in the debate was a risky bet. Sri Lanka is still a long way from peace.
Read my analysis of the elections results tomorrow in The Samosa, or later on this week on Insight into a post-war country.

Militias Continue to Press-gang Children

As published on the Institute for War and Peace Reporting website

By Melanie Gouby

Despite the International Criminal Court, ICC, indictment of Thomas Lubanga for the use of children in his militia, the recruitment of child soldiers continues in the east of the Democratic Republic of Congo, DRC.

Evidence that recruitment is going on comes especially from North Kivu province where a number of armed militias operate, including groups from the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda, FDLR.

“The recruitment carries on, especially in the territories where the [government's] authority is not well established yet,” said Pascal Badibangua, the director of a reintegration centre, which helps child soldiers adapt to life outside the military.

“I have just returned from a mission [to the North Kivu towns of] Rutshuru, Masisi and Goma, where I had the opportunity to see that armed groups are still recruiting child soldiers, despite it being illegal.”

Some of these areas maintain a parallel administration structure, where former rebel groups share authority with the government-appointed administrators in an ad-hoc arrangement.

Lubanga, whose trial resumed on January 7, is the former president of the Union of Congolese Patriots, UPC. He faces charges of recruiting, conscripting and using child soldiers to fight in the inter-ethnic conflict in the Ituri region of the DRC during 2002 and 2003.

During the Second Congo War, which lasted from 1998 until 2003, thousands of child soldiers were recruited.

A United Nations-backed reintegration programme led to some 30,000 children being demobilised by mid-2007, according to a report from the Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers, which was published in 2008.

The report says that, at the time, more than 7,000 child soldiers remained in armed groups and the Congolese national army.

The actual number could be higher than that, since child soldiers were again recruited during the 2007-2009 war between the National Congress for the Defence of the People, CNDP, a former rebel group, and the army.

It was hoped that the pioneering nature of the charges against Lubanga, whose trial was the first to begin at the ICC, would set a precedent and an example for other rebel leaders in the DRC.

But the deterrent effect seems to be only partial, according to experts.

“I cannot say that the Lubanga trial, to date, has been a catalyst in the prevention of the recruitment of child soldiers,” said Bukeni Tete Waruzi, an expert on child soldiers for Witness, a non-governmental organisation.

“At least we know that the ICC has the capacity to punish people who commit this crime. But we cannot see the actual impact very well, since children are still being integrated into armed groups.”

The ICC, however, maintains that its work is having a real impact, which will become more noticeable over time.

“[The impact] can only increase with the progress of the procedures at the ICC,” said Pascal Turlan from the office of the prosecutor at the ICC. “We have already seen encouraging signs, in particular from military leaders who have recently joined the demobilisation process.”

The ICC has taken some steps towards raising its profile in the DRC, and making local communities more aware of the role that international justice can play in fighting impunity in the region.

Screenings of the Lubanga trial have been organised in Ituri province. The court’s outreach unit also periodically organises events in the DRC, where members of the public are given the opportunity to raise any questions or concerns.

Despite these efforts, a culture of impunity still pervades the eastern provinces of the DRC, with many armed groups keen to hold on to their weapons.

The lack of a comprehensive programme to fight the phenomenon prevents any real progress on ending the recruitment of child soldiers. Even when demobilised, they often return to armed groups after a few years.

In Rutshuru, about 70 kilometres from the provincial capital Goma, the head of a support group for former child soldiers, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that former child soldiers often find it too hard to reintegrate into society, and remain vulnerable to militias on the lookout for new recruits.

“The children are manipulated [by militia leaders] and told that they must protect their tribe,” he said. “They are also [harassed] by the police and the military, who tear up their certificates of reintegration. When the children feel insecure, they go back to the bush.”

Very little protection or support is given to former child soldiers. Orphans are often rejected by their community because they killed some of its members or because they behave aggressively. Many who return are addicted to drugs or are infected with HIV.

“The success of reintegration depends on the degree to which the experience traumatised the child, but it will also depend on the economic and social conditions of the community,” Waruzi said. “The impact of such an experience on children is so great that it is almost impossible to bring them back to where they were before.”

Ruro Minbre, a former child soldier with the FDLR, told IWPR of the suffering endured by the children in these groups.

“[Militia groups] took children by force,” he said. “When children resisted, the soldiers knocked a small hole in their head or in the neck and they died. So we did not have a choice.”

This story first appeared on IWPR’s Facing Justice radio programme.

Blog at WordPress.com.
Theme: Esquire by Matthew Buchanan.